The recent judgment delivered by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court—declaring that a husband’s girlfriend cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—is, in my view, a reaffirmation of the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Let me begin by revisiting the origin and intent of Section 498A. Enacted in 1983, this provision was created as a targeted legal remedy to address the cruelty and often dowry-driven harassment that many married women in India faced within the confines of their matrimonial homes. What is critical here—and something I have always emphasized in my lectures and discussions — is the focus on the familial relationship. The section recognizes the culpability only of the husband and his *relatives* (in legal terms), reinforcing that liability under this section stems from blood or marital ties.
Now, extramarital relationships, undeniably, lead to emotional distress and often erode the sanctity of marriage. I do not deny the socio-psychological weight such affairs carry. However, as a legal expert and a citizen who deeply values the principles of justice, I firmly believe the law cannot criminalize betrayal of emotions or moral failings unless such actions meet the statutory definition of a criminal offense. A husband’s girlfriend, no matter how morally contentious her role may be in the breakdown of a marriage, cannot be considered a ‘relative’ under Section 498A. Therefore, charging her under this section becomes legally untenable.
This judgment underscores an essential tenet in law: the principle of legality, or what we refer to in Latin as *nullum crimen sine lege*—no one should be punished except under a precise law. I often stress this in my writings and discussions. It is this very principle that creates certainty in the legal system. It prevents arbitrary application of laws, insulating individuals from prosecution that is not firmly anchored in a valid and applicable statutory provision.
From a compliance and jurisprudential standpoint, the ruling also reflects a broader shift in judicial awareness. Over the last decade, several courts, including the Supreme Court of India, have cautioned against the misuse of protective laws—Section 498A being a particular focus. While we must not lose sight of the protection it offers to genuinely aggrieved women, we must equally guard against its weaponization. Misuse erodes the credibility of legal safeguards and creates resentment that may ultimately undermine justice delivery.
This verdict, to me, sends a subtle but important message—both to law enforcement agencies and to complainants—that the law must be applied deliberately, carefully, and within its clearly demarcated boundaries. The prosecutorial reach of Section 498A must not extend to individuals who do not meet the statutory definition, regardless of public sentiment or perceived moral wrong.
*Disclaimer: The views I expressed here are my personal reflections meant for learning and expressive discourse. They do not constitute legal advice.*
- Prof. Sudesh Kumar
